Even Islamic killers are clear that they engage in premeditated acts of terrorism. “This was a martyrdom-seeking [suicide] operation aimed at kidnapping Zionist soldiers,” the Islamic Jihad spokesman said. But to the BBC it was an “attack” by “militants.” I am sick of the witless BBC equivocation on this subject. These Palestinians are JIHADISTS, they even call themselves this. They enjoy taking the life of innocent Israelis. They are, by any standard, engaging in act of terrorism, so why will the BBC not call it like it is?
I also hate the way in which the BBC buries away another little lie in this same report. It innocuously states ” Fighting had subsided since early March, when the Israeli army launched an offensive that killed around 120 Palestinians. ” It conveniently leaves out the fact that a/ This Israeli strike followed the terror attack on Israel that resulted in the death of young teenage Jewish students in Jerusalem and b/ The 120 figure quoted includes a significant number of Hamas terrorists with others dying because they either voluntarily or involuntarily provided sanctuary to Hamas terrorists. What justification have the BBC for calling Islamic killers “militants” when even the Islamic killers boast of their terrorist ambitions?
Yes, here’s the text of that cached story. Please explain what on earth is ‘biased’ about this report.
John Reith | 10.04.08 – 6:47 pm
Too much to fisk and too little time John, so let’s jump to the last line of that report and perhaps you can explain exactly why that gratuitous comment is always pasted into reports of Arabs killing Jews:
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
Perhaps you can also explain why the reports headlined “Gaza gunmen attack border depot” or “Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes”, which were each successively at the same URL have been replaced with ” Israel will ‘respond’ over raid”, at the same URL.
I understand that you may consider it to be a “rolling story” but I don’t see why the BBC couldn’t keep the original story of the attack and murders of two civilians on one page and open a new page at a new URL for the story of Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai’s statement. Isn’t it just that the BBC prefers a headline that gives the impression that Israel is vengeful and mean?
Actually if you look at the text of the cached version I copied into my earlier post you’ll see that there have been at least three different stories all at the same URL:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2892907294950301637/#393573
This is not the story about the attack on the fuel depot, but the URL is the same:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Va32-Dy0q8YJ:news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7338000/7338055.stm+%22Two+killed+in+Gaza+Strip+clashes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en
Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes
An Israeli soldier and a Hamas militant have been killed in clashes in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
The Israeli army said one of its soldiers was killed and two others were slightly wounded in the course of a brief operation against militants.
Hamas said one of its fighters was killed in the operation, in the south of the Strip.
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants said they fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortar bombs at the Israeli troops, who were backed by helicopters.
The Israeli Defence Forces named the dead soldier as Saif Bissan, 21.
Hamas named its dead militant as Mohammed Shamiya, also 21.
That story is now nowhere to be found on the BBC website.
Why are the BBC deleting history?
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?uri=%2F&scope=all&go=toolbar&q=Saif+Bissan
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&tab=all&recipe=all&q=Mohammed+Shamiya&x=67&y=13
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Saif+Bissan&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mohammed+Shamiya&btnG=Google+Search
The posturing of the BBC that their choice of language is neutral,is frankly despicable.The Cultural Marxists have always been aware that to control the language is to control the narrative.Those who control the narrative, control peoples perceptions.
Now either the BBC is ignorant or deliberately disingenuous.Since the BBC employs a large number of graduates,is it possible that the BBC is ignorant?
Biod,
Have a look at news sniffer
It shows several earlier versions of this story. The current version is nothing like the earlier versions which does raise the question why not freeze the earlier version and have a new page for the new story.
Its got all the hallmarks of a BBC article – passive voice for “israelis die”, scare quotes, reporting Pal version as fact but the Israeli version as “israel says…”.
BioD
perhaps you can explain exactly why that gratuitous comment is always pasted into reports
I suspect it’s in response to complaints made here and elsewhere a couple of months ago about reports of Israeli incursions into Gaza needing to be set in the context of the rocket offensives against Sderot.
Damned if you don’t; damned if you do…..
Jack Hughes,
The version in google’s cache is a report of a completely different incident, not an earlier version of the same story. Like I say, the report of that incident, in which an Israeli soldier and an Arab terrorist, has now disappeared completely.
By contrast the story of the UN man has two pages:
UN expert stands by Nazi comments, which sort of implies he’s right to do so, and note that he’s described as an ‘expert’, while in fact he’s a moonbat.
And Israel to bar UN rights official.
Now, if the BBC can give that story two pages why has it amalgamated the story of the attack on the Nahal Oz depot into the aggressive sounding headline Israel will ‘respond’ over raid? why not maintain the original story “Gaza gunmen attack border depot” and add the additional story on a new page? Perhaps because the story of Israel’s response isn’t much of a story really?
John Reith,
I suspect it’s in response to complaints made here and elsewhere a couple of months ago about reports of Israeli incursions into Gaza needing to be set in the context of the rocket offensives against Sderot.
But this is a report of a “Palestinian” attack on Israeli soil, not a rocket attack, nor an Israeli offensive!!!
The only ‘context’ that phrase could set is to infer that the attack was retaliation for Israeli incursions, ie: justification for it, ie: the Jews had it coming.
Jack Hughes,
Perhaps I’m not being crystal clear. Look at the Newssiffer URL you provide and you’ll see that the two ‘versions’ are in fact two different incidents. In the first an Israeli soldier and a Hamas ‘militant’ are killed, in the second the separate attack is hinted at only in the first para:
Local media reported heavy exchanges of fire near the Nahal Oz crossing in northern Gaza.
You have to go to the next versions before the Nahal Oz attack begins to take preference:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/113345/diff/1/2
Palestinian militants have attacked a border crossing between Gaza and Israel, killing at least two Israeli civilians, the Israeli army says.
Local media reported heavy exchanges of fire near the Nahal Oz crossing in northern Gaza. Local media reported heavy exchanges of fire near the Nahal Oz crossing in northern Gaza, where fuel is piped to the territory.
The current version of the story, with a different headline therefore not oicked up by Newssniffer, says nothing about the earlier deaths, neither are those reports anywhere to be found on the news site, but still end with the ubiquitous Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
oicked up = picked up
More on those ‘martyrs’:
Hamas’ Fake Martyr Scam
Palestine Press Agency reports that one of the “martyrs” that Hamas claimed to have been killed during Wednesday morning’s murder of an IDF soldier was in fact killed in internal Fatah/Hamas clashes, and Hamas brought his body to the area to claim that Israel killed him: (autotranslated):
[…]
It’s been common knowledge for some time that the “Palestinians” keep dead bodies waiting for the chance to throw them in the road when an IDF patrol passes by, fire a few shots at the patrol to get a response then claim that the Jews killed the dead body.
Fakes and phoney’s are Hamas’ stock in trade, see also:
IDF: Hamas creating phony humanitarian crisis
Press said Hamas established a special body, The Popular Committee for Fighting the Siege on the Gaza Strip, in order to make accusations against Israel.
“For example, they started to count the number of patients who died of disease in the Strip and blamed us for failing to provide treatment,” he said. “When the list reached 60 people we undertook a thorough examination and discovered that 20 of them were treated in Israel, while the rest did not even ask to enter Israel for treatment.”
“In the past year, the defense establishment allowed more than 7,000 patients and a similar number of escorts to enter Israel for treatment,” he said. “Had these 40 patients asked for it, they would have received the same permit.”
“Hamas realizes that its situation on the Palestinian street is difficult, and every such accusation resonates in the media and creates international support,” Press added. “In reality, the ones who cut off
the electricity supply in January were Hamas.”
Don’t confuse Reith and friends with the facts, Biodegradable (Banned). I’ll try to do some fisking on the BBC ‘reports’ you have so diligently hunted down when I get a bit of time.
All those contortions BBC hacks go through to hide the inconvenient facts of this conflict, like the nature of Islamic terrorism, must take up a helluvah lot of their time. It’s hard work, being a propagandist: can’t say this, have to tiptoe around that, omit that fact, fudge the other fact, trumpet another fact from the rooftops…. It’s a wonder they actually get any reports out at all.
Bryan | 11.04.08 – 12:49 pm |
“All those contortions BBC hacks go through to hide the inconvenient facts of this conflict, like the nature of Islamic terrorism, must take up a helluvah lot of their time. It’s hard work, being a propagandist”
Exactly right. Which is why this is not a question of mere bias. The BBC is a propaganda tool at the service of totalitarian would-be conquerors. It will eventually reach its Nuremberg.
.
John Reith,
You want ‘context’?
Have some of this!
How Hamas fuels Gaza ‘gas shortage’
.
Bryan | 11.04.08 – 12:49 pm
“All those contortions BBC hacks go through to hide the inconvenient facts of this conflict, like the nature of Islamic terrorism, must take up a helluvah lot of their time.”
Yes, but you know what? I put it down to ignorance. Or if you like intentional ignorance. Accidentally on purpose type of ignorance.
Add this together with the reminder that crops up over again in that 2006 report about BBC guidelines. ‘Don’t forget the Asymmetric nature of the conflict.’ Yes it is asymmetric if you deliberately ring-fence the conflict and confine it to a little local difficulty between mighty Israel and the poorpalestinians.
But how can they divorce the rest of the Arab world, the war between the Islamic world and the West, from the ‘nature of the conflict’ when Islam is rearing its ugly head everywhere. Surely by now they must be aware of the connection.
I frightened myself with Melanie Phillips Spectator article today,
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/604366/the-iranian-chess-game.thtml
What aa far sighted analysis of the clever long term waiting-game strategy of Iran. Heaven help all of us as we sleepwalk into goodness knows what with the help of the complacent, adolescent and misguided BBC.
Re: “Left” loons and Islam: They have been here before.
“Foucault, in a short rejoinder published the following week in Nouvel Observateur, wrote that what was “intolerable” about Atoussa H.’s letter, was her “merging together” of all forms of Islam into one and then “scorning” Islam as “fanatical.” It was certainly discerning on Foucault’s part to note in his response that Islam “as a political force is an essential problem for our epoch and for the years to come.” But this prediction was seriously undercut by his utter refusal to share any of her critique of “political” Islam. Instead, he concluded his rejoinder by lecturing Atoussa H.: “The first condition for approaching it [Islam] with a minimum of intelligence is not to begin by bringing in hatred.” In March and April 1979, once the Khomeini regime’s atrocities against women and homosexuals began, this exchange would come back to haunt Foucault.”
Faking atrocities is a standard Middle East tactic.This works wonderfully on the left and MSM simply because they want to believe it.It fits the narrative.
The BBC is a propaganda tool at the service of totalitarian would-be conquerors. It will eventually reach its Nuremberg.
.
Anat (Israel) | 11.04.08 – 1:05 pm
Let’s hope so.
Heaven help all of us as we sleepwalk into goodness knows what with the help of the complacent, adolescent and misguided BBC.
Sue | 11.04.08 – 3:38 pm
That’s why I feel compelled to expose the evil of BBC propaganda. Yes, maybe it is intentional ignorance, But I think some of them, like Jeremy Bowen, know exactly what they are doing. They are on the side of the barbarians in their fight against civilisation.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 10.04.08 – 5:54 pm
In this very short article, the BBC managed to identify terrorists as militants five times and fighters once. That’s probably a record.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Va32-Dy0q8YJ:news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7338000/7338055.stm+%22Two+killed+in+Gaza+Strip+clashes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en
And this:
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
I guess the BBC had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make one statement that indicates that Israel is justified in going into Gaza. For years the BBC has been effectively denying the link with its Israel says it is going into Gaza to stop the rocket attacks on Sderot tactic. Even when Israel blows up a truck transporting Kassams and kills terrorists who have just fired Kassams or ordered the firing, it’s always Israel says. It must have hurt so much to finally admit the connection that the hack couldn’t even get a complete sentence down correctly. Well, I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies from the BBC.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 11.04.08 – 11:14 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7338055.stm
Israel will ‘respond’ over raid the Blindly Biased Conglomeration informs us.
Israel has again held Hamas responsible for a raid by Palestinian militants on an Israeli fuel depot.
These Israelis never learn. Several militant groups, including Islamic Jihad, say they were to blame and Hamas has denied that its forces were involved in the attack so why are these stubborn Israelis still blaming Hamas?
Ah, here we have it: Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai said Israel would “settle the score” with Hamas, which it blames for the raid because it controls Gaza.
Seems perfectly logical to me. The BBC always makes much of the fact that Hamas won the election and enthusiastically promotes Hamas as the government-in-waiting of the Palestinians so why shouldn’t it bear responsibility for attacks from its territory? Why is the BBC trying to imply that Israel is misguided here?
Israeli officials say the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis.
No, they don’t. They say the terrorists targeted this point.
The raid, which happened just after a fuel delivery to Gaza, sparked a gun battle in which at least four militants were involved, the Israeli military says.
See above.
Two militants were killed as they fled back into Gaza, the Israeli military said, while at least one other apparently escaped.
Ditto.
Later, Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle in Gaza City which the military said had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants involved in the attack.
Ditto.
Maybe John Reith can get his friends at the BBC to stop lying to us and to follow the guidelines which state that they should accurately quote people who talk of terrorists.
Unless Reith was actually the one who wrote the bloody “report”.
When is “John Reith” going to get his BBC friends to explain why Egypt has blockaded its frontier with Gaza – when they are fellow Arabs and Egypt exercised sovereignty over Gaza 1948-67!
Maybe Alan Johnston can pay a visit and find out ….
Bryan;
“Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.”
I guess the BBC had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make one statement that indicates that Israel is justified in going into Gaza. For years the BBC has been effectively denying the link with its Israel says it is going into Gaza to stop the rocket attacks on Sderot tactic. Even when Israel blows up a truck transporting Kassams and kills terrorists who have just fired Kassams or ordered the firing, it’s always Israel says. It must have hurt so much to finally admit the connection that the hack couldn’t even get a complete sentence down correctly. Well, I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies from the BBC.
I don’t see that as a plus for the BBC, I read it’s repeated presence lately in a different light.
Reith claims it gives context, I see it as a gratuitous dig at Israel to excuse any Palestinian action.
As I’ve pointed out before its gratuitous because in this case Palestinians didn’t launch rockets (although they did use mortar fire as cover); they breached the border and shot to death two civilians and said in their statements that the intention was to kidnap soldiers, and the IDF didn’t mount a raid to stop rockets; they went in hot pursuit of the terrorists responsible for the murder of the two civilians.
Constantly harping on about Israel’s ‘frequent’ raids only serves to justify terrorist acts against Israel.
If the BBC realy want to give us more context they should be reporting on the sort of thing I’ve linked to in my earlier comments.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2892907294950301637/#393666
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2892907294950301637/#393654
Bryan,
It is good I suppose that the BBC has at least stopped calling those missiles “crude, home-made rockets that rarely cause casualties”, although the latest catch-phrase has already become a cliché too.
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
😆
Can anybody explain what the paragraph heading ‘Sceptical’ is doing in this report? It’s a quote because it’s surrounded with ‘inverted commas’ but its not attributed to anybody neither does it appear anywhere in the report.
Israeli tanks in Gaza incursion
Israel has sent tanks and bulldozers into the Gaza Strip after pledging to retaliate against a deadly militant attack on a fuel depot this week.
Medical sources in the Gaza Strip said four Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli fire during the operation.
Overnight, Israeli air strikes killed two militants near the city of Khan Younis in Gaza, the Hamas militant group said.
Two Israelis died in the attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot on Wednesday.
‘Sceptical’
The Israeli tanks and bulldozers entered the area near the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza early in the morning, drawing heavy fire from local militants.
The BBC’s Martin Asser in Jerusalem says it has been the fiercest day’s fighting since battles in northern Gaza last month, when dozens of Palestinians were killed.
Palestinian militants fired mortars and anti-tank weapons at the Israelis.
The dead Palestinian boys were aged between 14 and 17, witnesses said, and they were killed by air strikes and tank fire.
More than a dozen people were injured.
An Israeli army spokeswoman confirmed its forces had entered Hamas-run territory and came under attack.
In the early hours, Hamas said two members of its military wing were killed in air strikes in southern Gaza.
At least four other gunmen were wounded, Palestinian medical officials said.
Dozens of men later marched through the streets of the city, carrying the bodies of the dead and shouting anti-Israeli slogans.
Supplies cut
[…]
(Note also that “four Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli fire” while “Two Israelis died in the attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot”)
Biodegradable (Banned) | 12.04.08 – 1:38 am,
Yeah, I see your point, and how thoroughly it demolishes Reith’s observation on 11.04.08 – 9:48 am. So for years the BBC digs its heels in and separates Israel’s attacks on Gaza rocket launchers from the constant rocket fire on Sderot through dread of being seen to justify Israel’s actions in any way, and then it goes and makes the link when Israel attacks Gaza for a different reason – namely the terrorist attack on Nahal Oz.
And as you indicated, why label Israeli attacks as frequent when the daily rocket fire from Gaza is far more frequent – like about a month of attacks to one Israeli response? And what is this business of raids. It almost makes the IDF seem illegitimate. Hell, the BBC woulld never consciously mean to imply that would it?
So I guess we should try to make the BBC’s observation actually fit the facts on the ground:
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets [into] its territory
should read
Israel occasionally launches attacks into Gaza to try to stop terrorists from frequently firing rockets into its territory.
There, that’s better, BBC. Telling the truth isn’t so hard, is it?
Bryan,
Eminently sensible.
John Reith: Do you agree?
simon | 12.04.08 – 8:12 am,
John Reith and his precious BBC will never agree to anything that presents Israel in a better light than the bloodthirsty Arab terrorists who continually attack Israeli civilians. It would be bad enough if the BBC presented both sides as equally justified in attacking the other. It doesn’t. It presents Palestinian terror attacks as normal, justified military operations while subtly undermining Israel’s defence against the terror. And the BBC claims to be ‘impartial’ in its reporting on this conflict.
A few months back Reith started talking about Palestinian “military” operations. And the dhimmi BBC has for a long time obediently propagated the absurdity that Hamas is somehow divided into “miltary” and “political” wings – as if we are talking about a civilised people with a normal government here rather than an Islamic terrorist nest.
The BBC has become an extremely dangerous propaganda outfit, with great power and influence, subverting civilisation and all it stands for.
Can anybody explain what the paragraph heading ‘Sceptical’ is doing in this report? It’s a quote because it’s surrounded with ‘inverted commas’ but its not attributed to anybody neither does it appear anywhere in the report.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 12.04.08 – 2:18 am
Last two paragraphs in ‘current’ report, Israel tanks in Gaza incursion, read:
“I believe that these understandings will be reached this year, but I emphasise that I don’t see any chance of implementing an agreement in the near future,” Mr Olmert added.
Analysts said the statement, quoted on Kadima’s website, appeared to be the most sceptical Mr Olmert has yet released about the Annapolis process, launched by the US to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008.
No only do you have to read right to the end of the report and past another subhead but the addition has almost nothing to do with the body of the story. It’s quoting unnamed analysts, who may well be BBC staff – we’ll never know.
Normally (but not necessarily consistently) the BBC uses single inverted commas ‘X’ aka ‘scare quotes’ to express doubt or indicate the claim is unsubstantiated. It uses double inverted commas, “X” for reported speech.
The report itself demands fisking.
Israel has sent tanks and bulldozers into the Gaza Strip after pledging to retaliate against a deadly militant attack on a fuel depot this week.
Who used the phrase retaliation, implying tit-for-tat? Olmert is quoted in the article. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday vowed to strike at Hamas so that it “would be no longer able to act against Israeli citizens”. Not only is that not the same as retaliation but it is not clear that he used the words strike at Hamas (No inverted commas). If not the PM, perhaps the Defence Minister, the ministry, the Army spokesman, some Knesset member, WHO?
Israel faced strong international objections when it cut fuel supplies in January. Compare with Abu Ahmed of Islamic Jihad said the attack deliberately targeted the fuel depot on which Gazans depend.
“This fuel (from Israel) is dipped in humiliation,” he said, because people wait for it for hours. “If their fuel means humiliation for us, we don’t want it.” Perhaps the BBC is suggesting that Israel has an obligation to ship fuel to Gaza by force?
Bryan,
Eminently sensible.
John Reith: Do you agree?
simon | 12.04.08 – 8:12 am
Yes, actually, I do.
That can’t be Reith. Has to be an impersonator.
Bryan | 12.04.08 – 11:01 am
No, Bryan you are right to point out that Israel’s incursions are ‘occasional’ (sometimes even ‘reluctant’) and the rockets are ‘frequent’.
I have no problem with that.
“I have no problem with that.
John Reith | 12.04.08 – 11:34 am |”
Jolly good, Mr Reith. But of course don’t forget that the cut ‘n paste phrase
“Israel occasionally launches attacks into Gaza to try to stop terrorists from frequently firing rockets into its territory.” amended for accuracy by Bryan,
was gratuitously added in the first place. As mentioned earlier by Bio.
“Reith claims it gives context, I see it as a gratuitous dig at Israel to excuse any Palestinian action.”
As you very well know the ‘context’ it gave was to justify Hamas’s violence, something you have never had a problem with doing. Your problem is still the same as it has been all along, i.e. ‘setting in context’ “Israeli incursions.”
“Damned if you don’t; damned if you do…..
John Reith | 11.04.08 – 9:48 am”
Should read
“Damned if you don’t! Damned if you don’t!”
Sue | 12.04.08 – 11:45 am,
I’m wondering whether Reith also has no problem with my use of the word “terrorists” to describe Hamas and company.
If that’s the case, he’s going to have to start looking for another job.
Analysts said the statement, quoted on Kadima’s website, appeared to be the most sceptical Mr Olmert has yet released about the Annapolis process, launched by the US to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008.
Thanks for that deegee, however in the version I saw and quoted in my comment it does not appear below the ‘Sceptical’ sub-heading.
There was a following section headed Supplies cut but I’m pretty sure the phrase didn’t appear there either. I’m sorry now I didn’t quote the entire report. Even newsSniffer doesn’t have a version that includes that last Supplies cut part, as far as I can see.
Returning to my point about palestinians killed while Israelis die. just in the part I quoted in my original post I can count five instances of Palestinians actively killed by Israel while the Israeli victims are mentioned only once as having died.
Perhaps Reith would like to comment on that?
OK, the latest version on the International news site has the word ‘sceptical’ right in the very last paragraph under the sub-heading ‘Supplies cut’, NOT under the ‘Sceptical’ heading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7341961.stm
Analysts said the statement, quoted on Kadima’s website, appeared to be the most sceptical Mr Olmert has yet released about the Annapolis process, launched by the US to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008.
Not bias, just bad sloppy editing from highly paid so-called professionals!
Biodegradable (Banned) | 12.04.08 – 12:45 pm
They have a kind of tunnel vision. While scanning the page microscopically to see if there is the slightest hint of negativity towards the Palestinians, they miss obvious mistakes.
Would be nice if the BBC could occasionally focus on what the Palestinians are obliged to do under the Road Map rather than continually reminding us of what Israel has not done. Would also be nice if the BBC could concentrate on what Israel has done in the interests of peace:
*Pulled out of Gaza
*Removed check points
*Rerouted the security barrier a number of times in response to Palestinian legal appeals.
*Facilitated the flow of supplies into Gaza despite the rocket attacks.
*Treated Palestinians, including those wounded in terror acts against Israelis, in Israeli hospitals.
Leaving Hamas aside for the moment, what have Abbas and his crew done towards peace? Nothing, zero, zilch, nought, except if one regards complaining about the “occupation” as a peace overture.
And what have the Palestinians done against peace? It would take far more time than I have right now to compile that list.
Hear hear Bryan.
Like I say, let’s have more ‘context’ about the “Palestinians” and what they get up to day by day instead of the constant feed of stuff designed to gain them sympathy.
I see that the Beeb has resurrected that old ‘Obstacles to Peace’ series:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666495.stm
linked from here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7341977.stm
That report makes no mention of Israel, only Jordan, yet for the Beeb it’s a good excuse to link Israel into something negative.
I remember when we discussed ‘Obstacles to Peace’ last year I dug out a boatload of links to articles about Israel’s cooperation with Jordan and Arab villages in Israel to process sewage and install hi-tech irrigation systems – none of that is ever mentioned by the BBC. We’re only told that ‘arguably’ Israel started the 1967 war in order to steal water!
I note that Arab Terrorism is still not included as an important ‘Obstacle to Peace’.
See here, is there just one positive story about Israel?
MIDDLE EAST CRISIS
KEY STORIES
Israeli tanks in Gaza incursion
Israel will ‘respond’ over raid
Israel to bar UN rights official
FEATURES AND ANALYSIS
Abdul-Latif Nasif Unwanted guests
Why this man’s dream home in Nablus has turned into a curse.
Jerusalem Diary: 31 March
Who are the Mid-East prisoners?
Gaza’s ‘open prison’
Gaza’s humanitarian crisis
The BBC: sticking it to the Jews, it’s what we do!
From your Obstacles to peace link:
Years of skirmishes and sabre rattling culminated in all-out war…
Amazing, these Arab-Israeli wars just seem to happen without any genocidal intent on the part of the Arabs.
In Israel’s history, it has needed water to make feasible the influx of huge numbers of Jewish immigrants.
So where are these huge numbers then, still to arrive? That’d be good.
In addition to their sheer numbers, citizens of the new state were intent on conducting water-intensive commercial agricultural [sic] such as growing bananas and citrus fruits.
I like that intent. Almost as if they were unjustified in trying to survive. And I’m wondering if the BBC can produce one article without some mistake. Don’t they have any bloody editors?
There’s just to much to fisk here of Asser’s crap but it’s interesting that the last bit, under Better future?, is the only part of the article that doesn’t play the ‘blame Israel’ game, almost as if it is written by a different person.
Bryan,
When you say somebody is intent on doing something it usually implies a stubbornness and determination in the face of what is possible or advisable, or even legal.
The water wasn’t necessary just so this ‘huge influx’ had something to drink, it was necessary to ‘make the desert bloom’, which Israel has done with great success without using ‘water-intensive’ methods. On the contrary Israel has had success exporting and teaching others about it’s hi-tech methods of drip-irrigation.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Environment/water.html
http://www.export.gov.il/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=4050&CategoryID=818
http://library.thinkquest.org/26823/agriculture.htm
http://www.science.co.il/Agriculture-Companies.asp?s=irrigation
http://www.lightuntonations.org/IrrigationTechnology.html
http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enZone=democracy&enDispWho=Articles%5El139&enPage=BlankPage
Israel is the only country in the world to end the 20th century with more trees than there were at the beginning of that century.
I know because I contributed to planting some of them through the JNF when I was a kid in London 😉
Hear, hear to you too, Biodegradable.
OT: Did you see that The Editors has posted an article by the editor of the News website on Harrabin and his global cooling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
They claim to have some workable “tracking changes” policy in place at the BBC. I had laugh at that one. Tried to send them a comment, but of course it just “hung” for ages and then I got the ubiquitous Error 502.
Did you see that The Editors has posted an article by the editor of the News website on Harrabin and his global cooling.
I’ve just looked at it. In the light of what we’ve been discussing about two, or even three different stories at the same URL with ever changing headlines (IDF incursion in Southern Gaza, Arab attack on fuel depot, Israel “pledging revenge”), this is a blatant lie:
The BBC’s guidelines on tracking changes were laid down by Steve Herrmann, editor of this website: “When we make a major change or revision to a story we republish it with a new timestamp, indicating it’s a new version of the story. If there’s been a change to a key point in the story we will often point this out in the later version…
Talking about their blogs, I gave up trying to post a comment on Justin Webb’s regarding this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5569056797786464098/#393781
Too many 502 errors to be bothered to keep on trying.
Proof of stealth editing:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/114239/diff/2/3
I complained to the BBC at around 21:00 CET that it was incorrect to state that she was hitching to Lebanon as various other news sources and her own site said she was hitching to Israel. I also gave links.
The current version has been updated but the time stamp has not changed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm
I wait patiently for the headline “Feral youths militant neighbourhood”.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 13.04.08 – 1:16 am,
Good work. You would think that they would acknowledge the error, point out that a member of the public informed them of it and send you and anyone else who complained, if there was anyone, an e-mail saying thanks, the cheque’s in the mail, or whatever.
But they are happy not to make any prominent correction, leave it as a stealth edit and thereby let the thousands of people who read the original article remain misinformed.
Disgusting bunch of “journalists”.
This really is a story for Herrmann and Harrabin, who seem to think that the BBC has any ethics when it comes to admitting, or rather covering up mistakes and changes with their Climate change “debate”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Trying to contact them over a weekend will almost certainly get you the “Error 502” message for your trouble. But they may condescend to publish a comment during the week.
Not bias, just bad sloppy editing from highly paid so-called professionals!
Biodegradable (Banned) | 12.04.08 – 12:45 pm
Bad, sloppy editing should be random.
Bryan,
Yes, an email would have been nice to thank me but I didn’t really expect one. I sent the “correction’ via the link for inaccurate articles rather than official complaints. I’ve had no response at all from the several official complaints I’ve made in recent months. They must have my email and IP address in their black list.
deegee,
I was being generous ;-/
I’ve had no response at all from the several official complaints I’ve made in recent months.,
I’vew only made a few, but also no response except once to tell me I’d sent it to the wrong place and to resubmit it to the right place. Only thing is, I’d originally submitted it under the correct category so I thought to hel with them they can play games with someone else. Their complaints procedure really is a joke.